XXVII

XXXIX. SANCTIFICATION, FURTHER OBJECTIONS

A Some claim that many, who have embraced this doctrine, are really spiritually proud. To this I answer:

1 Many who hear and believe the doctrine of regeneration were deceived and amazingly puffed up with the idea that they were regenerated when they were not. But, is this a good reason for abandoning the doctrine of regeneration, or any reason why we should not preach the doctrine of regeneration?

2 Those who embrace this doctrine assume that simply saying what God has done for their souls is sufficient evidence of spiritual pride. But, there really is no spiritual pride at all! If an individual should reach this state, and says that he humbly lives without known sin, the church immediately suspects that he is guilty of possessing enormous spiritual pride. This consideration has caused many to hesitate and even refuse to declare what God had done for their souls, because they know that those who hear them will accuse them of spiritual pride. And this has seriously hurt their piety.

B Others say that this doctrine tends to make one highly critical. To this I reply:

1 I cannot deny that some who say that they believe in this doctrine have become highly critical. But this does not condemn the doctrine of sanctification any more than it condemns the doctrine of regeneration. You could apply that argument, that it tends to make one highly critical, to every acknowledged doctrine of the Bible.

2 Let any Christian do his whole duty to the church and the world in the condition they are in today. Let him tell it like it is to the church, and the Church will certainly rise up and charge him with being critical. Therefore, it is the most unreasonable thing in the world to think that the church in its present condition would not accuse any perfect Christian of being critical. Sanctification implies doing all our duty. But to do all our duty, we must rebuke sin in high places and in low places. How can we do this, with all the severity that we need to do it, without, in many cases, offending people and incurring the charge of being critical? We can’t! It is impossible! To believe that we can do it would challenge the wisdom and holiness of Jesus Christ Himself.

C Some say that those who believe in this doctrine lower the standard of holiness to the level of their own experience. To this I reply that it has been common to set up a false standard. It has been common to overlook the true spirit and meaning of the law. It has been common to represent sanctification as requiring something different from what it really requires. However, we cannot confine this to those who believe in this doctrine. The moral law requires the same thing from every moral agent, namely, that they shall be universally and unselfishly benevolent; in other words, that they shall love the Lord their God with all their heart, and their neighbor as themselves. This is all that the law requires of anyone. Whoever believes the law requires any more or less than this, does not understand it. Love fulfills the law.
The law levels its claims to us just as we are, and when the law exposes itself to us, it must take into consideration all our present circumstances. This is indispensable to properly understanding what constitutes entire sanctification. Yes, there may be a danger that we will misunderstand the true spirit and meaning of the law. We may theorize, or adapt a false philosophy, which cause us to lose sight of the deepest affirmations of our reason concerning the true spirit and meaning of the law. I often wonder if this error came from this common idea that if a man becomes holy, he would not be able to live in this world. I recently received a letter from a precious minister of the gospel. Even though he expressed the greatest attachment to the doctrine of entire consecration to God and said that he preached this doctrine to his congregation every Sunday, he still said that it was revolting to his feelings to hear any man claiming that he obeyed the law of God. Now let me ask, why should this be revolting to the feelings of piety? Is it because they believe that the law of God requires something that it does not and cannot require? Why should they think that such a claim is extravagant, unless they think that the claims of the living God are extravagant? If the law of God really requires no more from men than what is reasonable and possible, why should it be revolting to any mind to hear an individual profess to be walking in obedience? I know that the brother who wrote to me, would be one of the last men to deliberately and knowingly stretch any interpretation of the law of God. Yet, I feel that much of the problem that good men have with this subject comes from comparing the lives of saints with a standard that is far above what the law of God demands of His people.

D Another objection is that the grace of God is not sufficient to secure our entire sanctification in this life. They believe that whether we can achieve entire sanctification in this life resolves itself into the question of whether God sanctifies Christians in this life. These objectors say that if grace does not secure the faith, obedience, and perfection of the saints, it is not sufficient grace. They also claim that the provisions of the gospel must be measured by the results; and that the experience of the church decides both the meaning of the promises, and the extent of the provisions of grace. Now to this I answer: If we can apply the logic of this objection to entire sanctification, then we can also apply it to the spiritual state of every person in the world. They claim that, since men are not perfect, God has not made provision for their perfection. They say that the fact that people are no better than they are proves God has not made any provision for them to be any better than they are. After all, they would have tried to be better if they didn’t feel that it was hopeless. But, who will agree with these conclusions? And yet, these conclusions are inevitable from their assumptions. An unrepentant sinner might just as well claim that the grace of the gospel is not sufficient for him because it does not convert him. He might just as well blame his situation on the sovereignty of God, and say, “the sovereignty of God must convert me, or I cannot be converted; and since I am not converted, it is because the grace of God is not sufficient to convert me”. But, who will excuse the sinner? Who will accept his plea that the grace and provisions of the gospel are not sufficient for him?
Let ministers urge the claims of God to both saints and sinners. Let them insist that sinners must become Christians immediately, and that Christians can and should live totally for God. Let them insist that Christians live without sin. Let them command and encourage with the same urgency that the Apostles had for sinners; and we will soon find Christians entering into the freedom of perfect love, just as sinners have found pardon and acceptance. Let ministers present the same gospel to everybody, and insist that the grace of the gospel is just as sufficient to save us from all sin as from a part of sin; and we will soon see that the real problem in churches today is because the gospel has been hiding. Many churches today are weak and practically worthless because of unbelief. Countless ministers today teach their congregations that they shouldn’t expect to see God’s promises fulfilled. For example, millions believe that it is a dangerous error to expect the fulfillment of the promise: “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He that calls you, who also will do it” (1 Thess. 5:23, 24) When God says He will sanctify us wholly, and preserve us blameless unto the coming of the Lord, ministers today tell us that we are wrong to expect this.

E Another objection to this doctrine is that it is contrary to the views of some of the greatest and best men in the church. They say that men like Augustine, Calvin, Doddridge, and Edwards etc had different opinions. To this I answer:

1 Suppose they had. We are to call no man father in such a sense that we depend on them to determine our views of Christian doctrine.

2 This objection comes from the very same people who completely reject the opinions of these very same church fathers on some of the most important points of Christian doctrine.

3 These men all held the doctrine of physical moral depravity, which was clearly their ground for rejecting the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life. If you assume that your constitutional feelings of both your body and mind are sinfully depraved, you must reject the idea that people can be sanctified while in the body. Now, I would ask, what consistency is there in quoting them as rejecting the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, while the reason that they rejected the doctrine of sanctification was because they believed in the doctrine of physical moral depravity? As it turns out, many, who quote their authority, deny the doctrine of physical moral depravity

F Oh, but they object, saying that if we should reach this state of continuous consecration or sanctification, we could not know that we did until judgment day; and that to claim that we can achieve sanctification is foolish because no one can know whether he has reached it or not. To this I reply:

1 Our conscience is the highest and best evidence of the present state of our own heart. I understand that conscience is our hearts recognition of its own existence and exercises, and that our conscience is the highest possible evidence to us of what passes within us. Conscience can only testify to our present sanctification; but,

2 With the law of God before us as our standard, the testimony of our conscience concerning whether we conform to that standard or not, is the highest evidence that we can have that we are currently conforming to that rule.

3 It is a testimony, which we cannot doubt any more than we can doubt our existence. How do we know that we exist? I answer, by our consciousness. How do I know that I breathe, or love, or hate, or sit, or stand, or lie down, or rise up? How do I know whether I am joyful or sorrowful? In short, how do I know whether I exercise any emotion, or conscious decision, or even a thought? How do I know that I sin, repent, or believe? I answer, by my own consciousness. No testimony can be as direct and convincing as this.
Now, in order to know whether my repentance is genuine or not, I must know what genuine repentance is. So, if I want to know whether my love for God and man is genuine, I must have clearly before my mind the real spirit, meaning, and bearing of the law of God. Once I have the law of God clearly before my mind, my own conscience provides me with the most direct and convincing evidence possible of whether my present state of mind is conformed to that rule or not. God never uses His Spirit to tell me what my conscience dictates. No. God uses His spirit to set the rule, that I must conform my life to, in a strong light and place it before my mind so I may understand it. It is God’s good pleasure to make me understand. It is His good pleasure to influence me to love and obey the truth; and it is the good pleasure of my consciousness to testify whether I do or do not obey the truth, when I understand it. When God so presents the truth that I gain the assurance that I understand His mind and His will on any subject, the fact that I am clearly aware of my own state in view of that truth is the highest and most direct evidence possible of whether we obey or disobey.

4 If we cannot be aware of the character of our own purpose or goal in life, if we cannot be aware of the choice in which our moral character consists, how can we know when, and what, we are to repent of? If we commit a sin that we aren’t aware of, how can we repent of it? And if we have a holiness that we aren’t aware of, how can we have peace with God?
But, some say that a man may unknowingly violate the law, and, as a result, not be aware that he had sinned, but later, learning about the law may convict him of sin. To this, pleas let me say that, if there was absolutely no knowledge that something in question was wrong, doing that thing was not sin, because you must have some degree of knowledge of what is right or wrong for any act to have moral character. In this situation, you may have sinful ignorance, and that ignorance may involve all the guilt of those actions that were done as a result of that act; but that blameworthiness lies in the state of the heart that led to that act, and not in violating the rule that you were entirely ignorant about at the time.

5 The Bible everywhere assumes that we are able to know, and thus the Bible requires us to know what the moral state of our heart is. It commands us to examine ourselves, to know and to prove ourselves. Now, how can we do this unless we bring our hearts into the light of the law of God and then accept the testimony of our own conscience, whether we are, or are not conforming to the law? But if we must not receive the testimony of our own conscience concerning our present sanctification, should we to receive the testimony of our conscience concerning our repentance, or salvation, or any other exercise of our mind? The fact is, we can deceive ourselves if we don’t compare ourselves with the right standard. But when our views of the standard are right, and our conscience bears witness that our heart is right, we cannot be deceived any more than we can be deceived concerning our own existence.

6 But some say that our consciousness cannot tell us about the power and capacity of our mind, and therefore even if our conscience could tell us about what kind of mental exercises we have, it cannot tell us about their degree, whether our mental exercises are equal to the present capacity of our mind. Let me respond by saying that, our conscience testifies whether we do or do not love God with all our heart. It also testifies whether we love Him at all. How do we know that we lift as much as we can, or run, or walk as fast as we are able? We know by our own consciousness. How do we know that we repent or love with all our heart? We know by our own consciousness. Our consciousness is the only possible way we can know these things.
Their objection suggests that God never put within our hearts any means for us to know whether we obey Him or not. The Bible does not directly tell us whether we obey God or not. The Bible simply reveals our duty, but it does not tell us whether we obey or not. The Bible appeals to our own conscience for this testimony. The Spirit of God sets our duty before us, but He does not directly reveal to us whether we will obey or not. This would imply that every man is under constant inspiration.

7 But the Bible does direct our attention to the fact of whether or not we outwardly obey, as evidence of whether we are in a right state of mind or not. But, how do we know whether we obey or disobey? How do we know anything about our conduct other than by our conscience? Our conduct, as seen by others, is evidence, to them, of the state of our hearts. But, let me say again, that our awareness of whether we obey God is, to us, the highest, and indeed the only evidence of our true character. If our own conscience is not a witness either for or against us, no other testimony can ever satisfy us that God’s dealing with us is proper.
It is common for witnesses to testify to the guilt or innocence of a man that is contrary to the testimony of his own conscience. In every situation, he rejects all their testimony: and let me add, that he would even reject the testimony of God if it contradicted his own conscience. When God convicts a man of sin, it is not by contradicting his conscience; but by placing his conscience in the clear strong light of his memory, causing him to clearly remember what light he received, and what was the state of his thoughts, his convictions, and his intention or purpose. In other words, God reveals to him the state of his conscience at the time he committed the sin. And this is the only way that the Spirit of God can convict a man of sin, and bring him to condemn himself. Now, suppose that God should bear testimony against a man that at a certain time he did a certain thing, and God testifies to all the circumstances of the situation; and suppose that, at the same time, the individual’s conscience completely contradicts God. Even the testimony of God, in this situation, could not satisfy that man, nor would God’s testimony lead him into a state of self‑condemnation. The only possible way you could influence that person would be to annihilate his opposing consciousness, and then convict him simply on the testimony of God.

8 People may overlook what conscience is. They may mistake their rule of duty. They may confuse conscience with a negative state of mind, or a state of mind in which a man is not conscious that he is opposed to the truth. Yet, it must forever remain true that, to our own minds, conscience must be the highest possible evidence of what passes within us. And if we cannot know, by our own conscience, whether we do the best that we can under the circumstances, whether we have a single eye to the glory of God, and whether we are in a state of complete consecration to God, we cannot know it at all. Without the testimony of our conscience, according to the laws of our being, no testimony whatever, either from God or man, will satisfy us either as to the conviction of guilt on one hand, or self‑approval on the other.

9 Let me ask, how do those who make this objection know that I am not in a sanctified state? Has God revealed it to them? Has He revealed it in the Bible? Does the Bible say to them by name, “He is not in a sanctified state?” Or, does the Bible lay down a rule, in the light of which my own conscience bears this testimony against me? Has God revealed directly by His Holy Spirit, that I am not in a sanctified state, or does He hold the rule of duty strongly before my mind, and thus awaken the testimony of my conscience, so that my conscience tells me that I am not in this state? Now, this is exactly the same way my conscience reveals to me whether or not I am sanctified. Neither the Bible nor the Spirit of God makes any new or particular revelation to me by name. But the Spirit of God bears witness to my spirit by setting the rule in a strong light before me. He influences my state of mind, and then my conscience tells me that I conform to that rule. This definitely does not come from setting aside God’s judgment in this situation; for conscience, under these circumstances, is the testimony of God, and conscience is the way that God uses to convict me of sin on one hand, and assure me of entire consecration on the other.

10 Still some object, saying that our conscience alone cannot provide enough evidence that we are in a state of entire sanctification; that we also use our mind to decide the true intent and meaning of the law, and therefore, our mind is just as important a witness as our conscience is. “Our conscience,” they say, “reveals to us the exercises of our own mind, and our judgment decides whether these exercises are according to God’s law.” Therefore, according to them, it is our judgment rather than our conscience that decides whether we are, or are not, in a state of entire sanctification. Therefore, they say that if, in our judgment of the law we happen to be wrong, which nothing is more common, then we are completely deceived if we think that we are in a state of entire sanctification. To this I answer:

11 Yes, It is our judgment that decides on the intent and meaning of the law. We may be wrong concerning how we apply the law in the things that we do, but remember, that God does not base whether we sin or are holy on our outward acts. Sin and holiness belongs to our ultimate intention, not our outward acts. We already showed earlier, that no one can mistake his real duty. Every one knows, and must know, that unselfish love is his duty. Nothing else is. He can know this, and he doesn’t have to be wrong about this. And if man can be certain of anything, he can be certain concerning the end he lives for, or concerning his supreme ultimate intention.

12 I deny that our judgment is our witness. We apply several different powers of our mind when we decide what God’s law means, and when we obey His law; but only our conscience reveals these applications to us. Nothing but conscience can possibly tell us what our mind is doing. Our conscience is the only way that we can know whether anything we do is right or wrong. Suppose we do use our judgment, our will, and all our involuntary powers. Our conscience reveals to us whether the things we do are right or wrong. Therefore, it is an invariable truth that our conscience is the only possible witness of what we do, and the only possible witness of the state of our own hearts. Therefore, when I say, that by conscience a man may know if he is upright before God, I mean, that conscience is the real and only evidence that we can have of being in this state.

13 The foundation of this objection is a misunderstanding of what constitutes entire sanctification. Entire consecration consists in an abiding consecration to God, and not, as the objection assumes, in involuntary affections and feelings. When we see that entire sanctification consists in an abiding good will to God and others, in living for one goal, how can it be impossible to know whether we are supremely devoted to this goal, or supremely devoted to our own selfish interests?

G Again, some object, saying that if we could achieve this state during our lifetime, it would be the end of our probation here on earth. To this, let me say that those points that we are in a state of probation or trial since the fall of Adam, are:

1 Whether we will repent and believe the gospel.

2 Whether we will persevere in holiness to the end of our life.

a Some think that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints sets aside the idea of being in a state of probation after conversion. This is how they reason. If the saints persevere, they say, then their probation is over because perseverance not only settles the question that they are converted, but it also settles the question that they will also persevere to the end. Let me respond by saying that, just because something may be uncertain with us does not mean that it is uncertain with God. God never has any uncertainty concerning the final destiny of anyone. But, as far as we are concerned, almost everything is uncertain. God knows if you will be converted. He knows if you will persevere. You may know you are converted, and you may believe that, by the grace of God, you will persevere. You may have an assurance of this in proportion to the strength of your faith. But knowing this fact is not at all inconsistent with our idea that we must continue in a state of trial until the day we die, since our perseverance depends on the exercise of our own free will; and also because our perseverance is a condition of our final salvation.

b Some say that if we have reached a state of entire or permanent sanctification, we can no longer be in a state of probation. I say that, perseverance in sanctification depends on the promises and grace of God, just as the final perseverance of the saints does. The only assurance we can have is faith in the promise and grace of God; the only knowledge that we have that we will continue in this state comes from a belief in the testimony of God, that He will preserve us blameless until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. If this is inconsistent with our probation, I don’t see why the doctrine of the saint’s perseverance is not equally inconsistent with it. If any one believes that believing in our final perseverance based on the promises of God would be inconsistent with a state of probation, all I can say is that his views of probation are very different from my views, and as far as I understand, from the views of the church of God.

c There is a very high and important sense in which every moral being will remain on probation throughout all eternity. As long we are under the moral government of God, obedience must forever remain a condition of God’s favor. And continued obedience will forever depend on the faithfulness and grace of God; and the only confidence we can ever have, either in heaven or on earth, that we will continue to obey, must be based on the faithfulness and truth of God.

d If it is true that entering into a state of permanent sanctification in this life, is, in some sense, an end of our probation, that still would be no objection to the doctrine; for there is a sense in which probation often ends long before our life ends. For example, under certain circumstances, God has left sinners to fill up the measure of their iniquity, withdrawing forever His Holy Spirit from them, and sealing them over to eternal death. This, in a very important sense, is the end of their probation, and they are as sure of hell as if they were already there. So, on the other hand, when a person has received, after believing, the sealing of the Spirit unto the day of redemption as a down payment of his inheritance, he regards this as a solemn pledge on the part of God, of his final perseverance and salvation, and as no longer leaving the final question of his destiny in doubt.

e Remember, that in both these situations, the result depends on the exercise of our free will. In the case of the sinner given up by God, it is certain that he will not repent even though his unrepentance is voluntary. The same is true on the other hand. The perseverance of the saints is certain, even though it is voluntary. If, in either situation, there should be a willful change of character, the result would differ accordingly.

H Although some people admit that entire sanctification in this life is possible, they deny that anyone can be certain that they can attain it before death. They say that, since faith conditions all the promises of entire sanctification, the promises do not secure the entire sanctification of anyone. To this I’d like to say that, the Bible conditions all the promises of salvation on faith and repentance; and therefore if you apply this same logic to salvation, no one would ever be saved.
What does all this arguing prove? The fact is, that while faith conditions the promises of both salvation and sanctification, the promises that God will convert and sanctify the elect, spirit, soul, and body, and preserve and save them, must be fulfilled, and will be fulfilled, by free grace drawing and securing the cooperation of our free‑will. Concerning the salvation of sinners, God promises that Christ will have a seed to serve Him, and the Bible abounds with promises that secure the salvation of multitudes of sinners. So the promises, that the church, as a body, at some period of her earthly history, will be entirely sanctified, are unconditional. This will happen. But, concerning individuals, the fulfillment of these promises depends on the exercise of their faith. Concerning both the salvation of sinners and the sanctification of Christians, God abundantly pledges to bring about the salvation of sinners and the sanctification of Christians, to the extent of His promise in Christ.